Submit Hint Search The Forums LinksStatsPollsHeadlinesRSS
14,000 hints and counting!


Click here to return to the 'what about encrypted AFP?' hint
The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
what about encrypted AFP?
Authored by: Whosawhatsis on Sep 11, '07 11:42:19AM

Is there any significant advantage to using this instead of AFP/SMB over an SSH tunnel (TCP over TCP, but it requires no added software if you know how to configure the tunnel manually) or over hamachi (or similar UDP VPN)? Both of these options offer more options for NAT traversal and have more possible applications. Before I found hamachi, I used a series of ssh tunnels to connect to my home machines when I was away, and encrypted file transfers (as well as encrypted VNC and anything else I needed), and with the tunnel/VPN already running, file sharing is as easy as on a LAN.

---
I was offered a penny for my thoughts, so I gave my two cents... I got ripped off.



[ Reply to This | # ]
what about encrypted AFP?
Authored by: gruffell on Sep 11, '07 04:01:08PM

This is easier than the tunnel method because you don't need to do anything special on the server - so long as it has ssh which is the real advantage of this, you can connect to any computer that has ssh and mount the filesystem as a harddrive.

Look at the "What else can MacFuse do?" section and watch the demo there it gives you a much better description than I can do here.



[ Reply to This | # ]
what about encrypted AFP?
Authored by: Alrescha on Sep 11, '07 04:13:07PM

"This is easier than the tunnel method because you don't need to do anything special on the server"

I don't understand this comment. I've been tunneling port 548 over ssh for a long time and I never had to do anything special on the server end.

I'm sure Fuse has an application, but for OS X to OS X connections, I don't see an incentive to change.

A.



[ Reply to This | # ]
what about encrypted AFP?
Authored by: Anonymous on Sep 12, '07 03:33:42PM
"I'm sure Fuse has an application, but for OS X to OS X connections, I don't see an incentive to change."
There's your answer. But Web developers often have hosting on a remote Linux machine. They might be using MySQL and so have a use for mysqlfs. Content creators might like to explore and debug their master DVD content with DVDfs. FUSE unifies these under a single mechanism to support any data structure as a filesystem. This is the Unix philosophy: elegant.

[ Reply to This | # ]
what about encrypted AFP?
Authored by: jhirbour on Sep 11, '07 07:15:41PM

The thing you've gotta watch with AFP is that it doesn't work well with latent links. If you have a speedy connection from your desktop/laptop to your server then you should be ok.

I've worked at an ISP for 9 years and seen OS X come out and customers starting to use it... The ones that call complaining about slow apple file transfers are almost always using AFP over TCP (and most of the time using it from CA to NY ... :-( stupid speed of light).

We've even done packet dumps (tcpdump etc...) of the AFP and it's something about length of time between TCP resends and AFP error correction that doesn't mesh. I mean after all I'm pretty sure AFP was developed as a LAN technology not a WAN technology.



[ Reply to This | # ]